Realism, Iraq, And the Bush Doctrine by Mackubin Thomas Owens 2006

7/30/2019 Realism, Iraq, And the Bush Doctrine by Mackubin Thomas Owens 2006

1/7

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219545/realism-iraq-and-bush-doctrine/mackubin-thomas-owens#--------------------------December 20, 2006 6:28 A.M.Realism, Iraq, and the Bush DoctrineBy Mackubin Thomas OwensSome clarification is desperately needed.

The release of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report has caused thechattering classes to swoon over the return of the realists. Now thespectacle of people who loathe Henry Kissinger and the memory ofRichard Nixon celebrating the virtues of foreign-policy realism istruly amusing and indicates a lack of seriousness on the part of critics

of the Bush administration in their to approach the Iraq War. Ofcourse, the critics embrace of realism is cynical just another wayto hammer the Bush administration. In fact, Bushs criticsmisunderstand realism only slightly less than they misunderstandtheir nemesis, the hated neoconservatism.

Terms in Need of ClarificationIn the context of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, realism issupposed to be synonymous with pragmatism. The wise menassociated with the ISG, especially James Baker, are in love with

stability. Thus the IRG seeks to achieve a stable Iraq by having theUnited States enlist the support of Iran and Syria. This recallsChamberlains deals with Hitler in Munich regarding the Germanseizure of the Sudetenland. That too was the sort of pragmatismassociated with this crude understanding of realism. We know howthat pragmatic quest for stability turned out.

In fact, realism is more complicated than this. Indeed, what so manydisparage as neoconservatism is a variant of a realist theory.

Realism is one of several schools of international relations (IR) theoryand the most dominant. Realism stresses the importance of powerand military security in international affairs. For the realist, the state isthe only important actor in the international arena and relative powerthe only meaningful goal. In contrast to this second characteristic,liberals believe that actors in the international political system (IPS)can cooperate out of benevolence as well as self-interest. They


2/7

contend that the goals of actors within the IPS transcend power andsecurity. Liberals stress the importance of peace and prosperity. Theysee an important role for actors in the IPS other than states, includinginternational institutions such as the United Nations. Constructivism,an increasingly popular school, argues that the categories ofinternational relations, far from being natural or objective, are sociallyconstructed. In the words of Alexander Wendt, anarchy is whatstates make of it. Finally, Critical IR theory essentially appliesMarxist categories to the IPS.

The Varieties of RealismRealism itself takes different forms. There are human naturerealists, who argue that the conflict that characterizes theinternational realm is merely a reflection of the fallen nature of man.

They can be said to be disciples of Thomas Hobbes.

Most modern realists are structural realists, who believe that thecompetitive character of international politics arises from the structureof the international political system (IPS), which is internationalanarchy. Since states have no common superior, they are the arbitersof their own security needs. In other words, the IPS is an every-man-for-himself system: each state must take whatever steps it believeswill ensure its survival, regardless of the opinions of others. A statemay form alliances, go to war, or build up its defenses. Of course, if

state A takes what it considers to be defensive steps, state B may seethese actions as threats to its security. This is called the securitydilemma and is the source of arms races and preemptive war.

For the traditional realist, relative power is the key. Defensiverealists argue that a state will pursue only the power that it needs toensure its survival. Offensive realists, such as John Mearsheimer,believe that a state will seek to acquire as much power as it can.

Realism and the Bush DoctrineTraditional realists have been critical of the Bush Doctrine, assertingthat its Wilsonian character has caused the United States tooverreach in the case of Iraq. Realists have predicted that the BushDoctrine will lead to anti-hegemonic balancing on the part of otherstates i.e., other states will takes actions to prevent the UnitedStated from establishing, or further establishing, international


3/7

hegemony. But such an outcome has not occurred. There has beenno anti-hegemonic balancing, even of the soft variety (the realistsfall back position). This suggests that other nations consider the BushDoctrine to be also in their own interests, or, at least, they do notworry that, in pursuing this doctrine, the U.S. intends to establish ahegemony harmful to their interests. This judgment is mostly likelybased on an understanding of the nature of the political regime of theUnited States, and this suggests that the realists dismissal of theregime question which, according to the reductionist logic ofstructural realism, doesnt matter when analyzing relative powerwithin the anarchic structure of the international political system isa little too parsimonious.

By ignoring the differences between a liberal democracy such as the

United States and other states, realists are liable not to recognizethat, apparently, even countries unhappy with the Bush Doctrine dontreally believe that Bush wants to govern vast areas of the world byforce, as it was put by Stephen Walt. Because other countriesunderstand the nature of a liberal democracy, they understand thatthe United States does not represent a threat to their interests orsovereignty. And, moreover, it is sure that other countries also see theneed to confront radical Islamic terrorism. If one of the goals of atheory is to predict behavior, realism has come up short with regard tothe Bush Doctrine.

Ironically, some realists themselves have called the premises ofrealism into question. Most famously, Ur-realists John Mearsheimerand Stephen Walt have attacked the so-called Israeli Lobby,claiming that it has hijacked American foreign policy in behalf ofIsrael. But how can that be? After all, realist theory teaches that astate makes decisions based exclusively on an assessment of theinternational balance of power. In addition, realists denigrate theregime question, denying for instance that there is any difference

between the behavior of a liberal democracy in the internationalpolitical system and that of a more authoritarian government. If that istrue, how can a domestic lobby exert such influence on U.S. policymakers who, as Mearsheimer argues in The Tragedy of Great PowerPolitics, are always attempting to maximize the power position of theUnited States relative to other states?


4/7

The problem with academic IR theory, especially in the debatebetween realists and liberals, is that it involves disciples ofMachiavelli and Kant talking past each other. For realists, liberals aretoo abstract and place too much emphasis on the good side ofhuman nature. For liberals, realists are too pessimistic and cynical. Inaddition, their theory is too parsimonious; it fails to explain very muchin the world. That is why neither school has satisfactorily explained

American foreign policy, which brings us to the neoconservatives andthe Bush Doctrine.

Neoconservatism and RealismUnfortunately, the term neoconservative has been applied sopromiscuously by the press that it is in danger of becoming nothingmore than a meaningless term of opprobrium. But in foreign policy,

the neoconservative enterprise is not that hard to grasp. In the wordsof Andrew Bacevich, a critic, the goal of neoconservatism is to fuse

American power to American principles, ensuring the survival of thoseprinciples and subsequently their propagation to the benefit of allhumankind.

As Francis Fukuyama observes in his recent book, America at theCrossroads, neoconservatives, unlike realists, believe that theinternal character of regimes matters and that foreign policy mustreflect the deepest values of liberal democratic societies. And unlike

liberal internationalists, who seem to believe that international lawand institutions alone are sufficient to preserve peace,neoconservatives contend that there are certain problems that can beaddressed only through the prudent exercise of [American] power.

In fact, to the extent that it reflects neoconservative principles, theBush Doctrine is based on a variant of realism. Some realists haveargued that the todays unipolar IPS is more hierarchical thananarchic, and that peace and prosperity are preserved, not by a

balance of power, but by hegemonic power. This has given rise tothe theory of hegemonic stability, which holds that a liberal worldorder does not arise spontaneously as the result of some globalinvisible hand. Instead, such a system requires, in the words ofEthan Barnaby Kapstein, a hegemonic power, a state willing andable to provide the world with the collective goods of economicstability and international security. The United States, as Great


5/7

Britain before it, took up the role of hegemon not out of altruism butbecause it was in its national interest to do so.

According to the theory of hegemonic stability, the alternative to U.S.power is a more disorderly, less peaceful world. The precedent forsuch disorder is the decay of Pax Britannica, which many believecreated the necessary, if not sufficient, conditions for the two worldwars of the twentieth century. As British hegemony declined, smallerstates that previously had incentives to cooperate with Britaindefected to other powers, causing the international system tofragment. The outcome was depression and war. The decline of

American power could lead to a similar outcome.

The Bush Doctrine is a species of primacy based on hegemonic

stability. Primacy can be caricatured as a go-it-alone approach inwhich the United States intimidates both friends and allies, wieldspower unilaterally, and ignores international institutions. But the BushDoctrine sees itself as having a benevolent primacy, an approach inkeeping with its liberal political traditions, but which recognizes theworld as a dangerous place in which a just peace is maintained onlyby the strong.

This form of primacy is based on the assumption that U.S. power isgood not only for the United States itself but also for the rest of the

world. The argument is that the United States can be fully secure onlyin a world where everyone else is also secure. The existence ofliberal institutions is not sufficient for preserving this order. A liberalworld order is possible only if the United States is willing and able tomaintain it. In the words of Sam Huntington:

the maintenance of US primacy matters for the world as well as forthe United States

A world without US primacy will be a world with more violence anddisorder and less democracy and economic growth than a worldwhere the United States continues to have more influence than anyother country in shaping global affairs. The sustained internationalprimacy of the United States is central to the welfare and security of

Americans and to the future of freedom, democracy, openeconomies, and international order in the world


6/7

Realists criticize the Bush Doctrine for its emphasis on expandingdemocracy. But such an approach can be found in Thucydides, whonoted that an important goal of both Athens and Sparta was toestablish and support regimes similar to their own: democracies inthe case of Athens and oligarchies for Sparta. The inference one candraw is that the security of a state is enhanced when it is surroundedby others that share its principles and interests.

Indeed, the Bush Doctrine endorses this very Thucydideanperspective. As the president declared in a June 2004 speech at the

Air Force Academy:

Some who call themselves realists question whether the spreadof democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But

the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality.America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat.America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

The poverty of mainstream realist thought is visible when we examineWashingtons Farewell Address, still a useful guide to thinking aboutforeign policy, especially for its noteworthy Lockean combination ofinterest and principle. After the passage that everyone misuses toprove that the real policy of the United States should be isolationist it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselvesin the ordinary

vicissitudes of [Europes] politics, or the ordinary combinations andcollisions of her friendships and enmities Washington provides theLockean synthesis.

If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the periodis not far off, when we may defy material injury from externalannoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause theneutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulouslyrespected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of makingacquisition upon us, will not lightly hazard giving us provocation;when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justiceshall Counsel.

The Farewell Address is a surer guide to the practice of foreignpolicy than the ISG report.

Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a


7/7

professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College inNewport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.

Realism, Iraq, And the Bush Doctrine by Mackubin Thomas Owens 2006

Documents

Transcript of Realism, Iraq, And the Bush Doctrine by Mackubin Thomas Owens 2006